Brits With Backbone

Between time spent at Cambridge & UCL on my MA, I've listened to a lot of liberal elites. They have the same opinions on, well, everything, as the liberal elites in the US.

My flatmates are among what I believe/hope to be a silent majority of Brits in this country who are, you know, sane when it comes to their politics. They love their country & respect the troops who defend their freedom.

I'm not going to repeat the whole story, Ace has got it covered, but there was a Welcome Home parade yesterday for British troops returning from Iraq. The usual, useful idiots--al Qaeda in Iraq & Taliban apologists--were out to embarrass themselves as they tried to shame the troops.

Mission decidedly not accomplished.

Anyway, I wanted to post video footage of the Brits in the street--the ones out to welcome home their heroes--shouting the "protesters" out of the public square. This is the usually silent majority I referred to above.

Note: As with any link to Ace, the usual language warnings apply. Additionally, there may be cursing in the vid, I can't tell; their accents make it hard for me to discern 4-letter words from ones we don't find offensive, but funny. Given the inflamed emotions, I'd imagine a few of the former were thrown around. You've been warned.




If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

5 (Actually 6) Reasons To Be Optimistic For McCain

These come from a lecture I attended last week at my MA alma mater, UCL. The lecture was given by Adam Smith, the professor who taught my Lincoln course. He is a sharp and savvy observer of American politics both in the contemporary sense and historically. He is also a liberal supporter of Barack Obama. Like pretty much everyone else in higher ed.

Without further ado:

5 (really 6) reasons to be optimistic for John McCain:
- Obama's weak finish in the primaries (ed. note: performing 2.8% worse than he polled)
- The U.S. is still a conservative country.
- A relatively high number of undecideds (ed. note: who look like they're breaking towards McCain)
- race (ed. note: by this he & liberal pundits mean 'Americans are racist,' but a better way to understand it is that people don't want to be perceived as being racist, so they say they're voting for Obama when really they're voting for McCain. The so-called "Bradley Effect" or some derivative thereof.)
- older voters may determine outcome in OH, FL, IN, CO (ed. note: most of the people I've spoken with during my GOTV calling have been seniors. And they all said two things: 'I already voted' AND 'I voted for John McCain.' Small sample, whatever.)
- focus on taxes narrowing polls (ed. note: he couldn't have seen it, but those just tuning in have seen Obama the "Redistributor." And, Obama's desire to "bankrupt" the coal industry can't play well in Pennsylvania & Ohio.

There you have it, Smith's 5 (nay, 6) reasons to be optimistic for McCain. He gave 5 reason for Obama too, but I don't want to be a buzzkill. And I'm an eternal optimist, so there's that.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Bias In Higher Education

We've written a number of times about the ideological divide at BYU. Generally perceived as a conservative school, like other institutions, BYU has a largely liberal professoriate. We think this is due, in part, to what happens to these professors when they go to grad school. Most of the dominant theories and professors in most of the graduate disciplines--certainly the humanities and social sciences--are liberal ones. This is especially true in any discipline where political ideology can possibly have any influence: engineering, business, hard sciences pretty much don't count here.

At BYU, the generally conservative student population (the political faith of their fathers) runs into their liberal professors. No one is giving bad grades for being conservative. And we haven't heard of any anti-Republican/business/Bush rants. But we have personally witnessed, for example, a debate about gender and the role of "social constructs" in defining gender identity. Certainly the science is not settled, but this was a history class and the popular side, the one promoted by the professor, was the one that said that social constructs define gender identity, not any inborn or innate or inherent sense. Those who argued for social constructs=gender identity were the ones "in the know." They adopted the typical liberal posture of, "if you knew better, you'd agree with us."

We don't want to get sidetracked by the substance of the debate, it's only an example. The point is that BYU is like every other university in the country in the sense that liberal professors wield great power in influencing the politics of their students. There may be 10% fewer registered Democrats (thought we doubt it) and they may be less strident than Ward Churchill, but they affect students just the same.

This was brought home to us this weekend in conversation with one of our friends, a broadcast journalism major. We had spoken before about internships and post-grad job prospects, so we knew about her anti-Fox News bias. We mentioned to her that Drudge had recently listed that Fox News programming had double the viewers of its next closest cable news competitor. This surprised her.

We've asked her before about her dislike of Fox News and she really wasn't able to give us a good answer. It had something to do with the fact that they (her journalism school) didn't like Fox News because they're biased or something and everyone else is, what? Giving us 'just the facts, please, ma'am?' Right.

There's just a kind of attitude towards non-liberal ideas, attitudes and institutions that infects higher education and if you want to get along and be accepted, you have to fall in line.

Sometimes these attitudes infect without the student even knowing it. We've seen this happen with our friends in grad schools (the ones who didn't go to MBA school). Without them even knowing (because they aren't taught as such), they learn to believe in all the -isms of the day: nihilism, relativism, utilitarianism, feminism, multiculturalism, postmodernism, whatever. Our grad school experience at UCL and seminars at Cambridge and Queen Mary was slightly different to the experience of American students. Because they were British institutions, their politics don't divide sharply down party lines. Of course there were more and less acceptable points of view--on Iraq, for example--but we felt our UCL professors were less (if you can believe it) ideological than many of our BYU professors. And certainly less ideological and postmodern than many of the professors teaching our friends in grad school.

This strange difference may have been a product of the fact that BYU professors know about public perception of their school (religious, conservative) and feel like they have to veer hard to the left in order to be accepted when they go to conferences. Again, this isn't true of everyone, but it's certainly true of many.

Back to BYU's J-school. Most editorial pages of most newspapers around the country have a consistent ideology. The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the NYT, Washington Post, USA Today, and LA Times are liberal. The same is not true of BYU's student newspaper, the Daily Universe. There is no coherent and consistent ideology. This is, of course, a result of the fact that the editorial board changes every semester. Different students + different backgrounds + different politics = constantly changing editorial ideology. Fine. But it is here that we see this tension between largely conservative students in a liberal dominated field (according to polls we saw back in 2004, 70% of journalists voted for John Kerry. Journalists do not mirror America.). Young BYU students, ready to liberate themselves from their parents, try out the new ideas they learn in their intro to comms classes. Thus, their reporting and opinion writing is a grab bag of conservative background, liberal journalistic training, and frosh and soph grammar and writing. Point being, sure, the DU often seems juvenile or poorly written, but we shouldn't hold it to an unfair standard.

The most invidious biases are the ones people harbor but about which they are unaware. That journalists in America and professors in higher education (and at BYU specifically) prefer Democrats is not the problem. Problems arise when the echo chambers they inhabit begin to make them think that their biases are the way the world is, rather than just one perspective.

This is the theme that unites our examples: our history class discussion of social constructs and gender, and our friend's J-School taught opinion of Fox News. They don't see the opposing view in terms of differing opinions, they see it in terms of right and wrong, smart and stupid, progressive and antiquated, enlightened and ignorant, educated and, well, uneducated.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

University College London, BYU, Obama, &c.

Image link

If the New York Times doesn't think a story is newsworthy, did it really happen?

You may recall that a few weeks ago the NYT ran a story about John McCain. None of their anonymous sources (who, mind you, didn't even meet their own rules on sourcing) said that McCain actually did anything, rather, it was a supposed to be a story about McCain's judgment and associations.

Along comes a story that is largely about Barack Obama's association and judgment. Where is the New York Times coverage? Buried. Journalistic double standard anyone?

Again, we don't think Obama personally espouses any of Reverend Wright's crazy ideas, but his 20 year relationship with Wright does raise questions (like the recent revelations about a deeper relationship with Rezko than previously thought) about his associations and judgment. Juan Williams, a liberal former Washington Post writer and current NPR and Fox News contributor, for whom we hold great respect, also agreed that this raises questions about Obama's judgment.

Barack Obama's Speech Transcript
Analysis: Obama Grabs Race Issue
Obama Rebukes Preacher, Urges Race Healing
Obama Confronts Racial Division In US

*UPDATE 6:15pm MST: Friend of Lybberty and Lost Boy writer, Morgan Habedank, weighs in on Reverend Wright's comments. We noted in the comments section of his post and repeat here: it is important for the less politically inclined, but no less intelligent among us, to sometimes hold forth on issues like this.

We believe that political pundits sometimes suffer from a myopia that afflicts all disciplines (this includes us). Thoughtful opinion from someone outside the political echo chamber can help us gain a greater understanding of issues and put them in proper perspective. Bravo, Mr. Habedank.

***

We want to call attention and give credit to the fledgling BYU Ski Team. We have a couple of friends on the team who give us irregular reports about the team's performance. This article from the Daily Universe is the first we've seen on the team. They race and train without any official recognition from BYU and, all things considered, have done quite well. This year they narrowly missed qualifying for the National Championships. Good job, BYU ski team.

***

From an otherwise unremarkable article about Provo development, the Daily Universe reported on a few interesting comments regarding Provo's student population:

Exclusiveness in Provo was an area of concern. Residents voiced their opinion that the city needs to market more to the student population as well as the non-LDS members of the community.

According to numbers from the city records for 2007, university students make up approximately 45 percent of Provo's population. Also, according to the city's Web site, more than 20 different religious groups are present in Provo.

"Students offer a very unique population that can really be capitalized upon," Simonson said. "Students don't usually have a large discretionary income, but they're always looking for something to do."

Melanie McCoard, an active member of the community who ran for city council three times, said some recent decisions made by the city council have caused some students to think Provo is anti-student.

"Opening up the downtown to students could help dissolve that perception," McCoard said.

As far as contentious relationships between longtime city residents and student populations go, BYU vs. Provo isn't breaking any records. That said, the Provo City Council and some residents resentful attitude towards students is irritating. Students don't vote here and supposedly pay little in taxes.

However, this superficial look at the benefit of BYU students in the Utah Valley does not tell the whole tale.

BYU employs thousands of people and provides innumerable (and, often, unknown) services to the greater Provo community. Students alone give hundreds of thousands of hours of services each year. They are helping out in schools, providing daycare for special needs kids so their parents can have a few hours to shop or whatever, they are cleaning up parks and neighborhoods and on and on. BYU students aren't simply entering to learn and going forth to serve once graduated, they are serving the entire time they are at BYU.

In exchange, they are ignored and patronized and sometimes demonized by Provo residents. The Provo City Council refuses to make student concerns a top priority when making parking policy.

Of course, they can get away with it because BYU students don't vote in local elections. But that doesn't make it or them, right.

***

Finally, a bit o news from my grad school, UCL. Student politics are interesting in London. In a post last year, we wrote about our experience with the UCL Student Union--essentially, their debate club (click here for the link).

Undergraduate and graduate involvement in UCL student government is an interesting thing. In one sense, they have more say over more things, but in another sense, their interest in the University beyond their emphasis is less than BYU students.

Be that as it may, we were struck by a recent email we received from one of our sources at UCL regarding the latest tempest in a teapot at the UCL Union:

On Wednesday the 5th of March, UCL Union held an [sic] "Reconvened Annual General Meeting". Since then, the sabbaticals and Chief Executive have received a substantial number of complaints regarding the democratic procedure of the meeting and subsequently questioning its legitimacy.

After investigating these complaints, the sabbatical team took the decision on the 10th of March to initiate disciplinary proceedings examining the chair of the meeting, UCL Union's General Secretary. The General Secretary has therefore been suspended from office pending the results of this disciplinary, which will hopefully be taking place in the first week of the third term. The disciplinary panel will be composed of senior members of College and sabbatical officers from other London students' unions.

Following this decision, a March 12th meeting of UCL Union Governance Committee resolved to temporarily suspend the decisions made at the "Reconvened Annual General Meeting" pending the outcome of the disciplinary panel, and will report back to the Union's Executive by the 6th of May.

In one sense, we're relieved to see that BYU isn't the only university that blows procedural things out of proportion, in another sense we're dismayed at the suspension of democracy and lack of transparency. This is all the information we could get about the actions of the General Secretary.

But stay tuned, if we can find it, we'll give you the rest of the story.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

This is not Cambridge

Last fall we wrote about (among other things) our experience with the UCL Union debate. We happened to stumble upon their meeting and simply observed the proceedings. Then today, while browsing the interweb, we came across an article by Jonah Goldberg in which he details his own debate experience at the Oxford Union. Though long, it's a great read and an excellent insight into the Oxbridge experience.

Tomorrow we will attend the Intelligence seminar at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, followed by high table/formal hall.

_____

Oxford's Preposterous Proposition
Justifying America to a doubtful audience

By Jonah Goldberg

Last week, I appeared at the Oxford Union to debate the proposition: “This House regrets the founding of The United States of America.” Such is the extent of anti-Americanism out there that this was considered to be a reasonable debate topic by Britain’s best and brightest.

It was an exhilarating and daunting experience. I do a lot of campus speaking and yet, going in, this felt like the functional equivalent of Rose Bowl. Ultimately, it turned out otherwise. But I only really realized that in retrospect.

In fact, I haven’t been that nervous before a speech or debate in years. One of the things that makes the whole thing so intimidating is how unrelentingly British the entire affair is. You debate in black tie. The President of the Union, a very sharp young man who looked like a cross between Harry Potter and Elvis Costello, wore a kilt. The pre-debate cocktail party is held in the Oxford Union library — or one of them — the shelves groaning with leatherbound collections of The Economist and other journals going back more than a century. The pre-debate dinner is quite formal with toasts to the queen and ceremonial beatings of the Irish.

(I made that last part up.)

Regardless, the pomp and ceremony is authentic, not kitschy, and it comes easily to these kids who seem to be oblivious to how British they really are. The net effect of all of this is to make this American visitor feel all the more the outsider, like my cultural fly was permanently unzipped.

My colleagues in the debate were Peter Rodman, a former foreign-policy muckety-muck in the Reagan administration (and NR senior editor) and all around good guy, and Matt Frei, a convivial and charming Brit who covers the U.S. for the BBC. Plus there was one student debater on our side, an earnest and sharp young man who looked like he raced to put on his tux after arduous rehearsals for the Oxford theater troupe’s edition of Godspell. Lanky and long-haired, when he first told me he was one of the debaters, I immediately assumed the hippyish fellow was the anti-American. Instead, he was on our side.

The defenders of the proposition were originally scheduled to be one student plus three invited speakers: two Islamist radicals and a bona fide Communist.

But the Communist chickened out at the last minute, reportedly explaining that he didn’t want to debate because he feared his side would lose. Now, a few short points need to be made here. First, this was remarkably shabby on his part. Second, why on earth a devout Communist would shirk at the prospect of fighting for a lost cause is beyond me. I mean hasn’t that ship sailed? And, lastly, the Communist’s cowardice was an enormous disappointment because Peter Rodman and I had prepared to debate a Communist. We yearned to debate a Communist. I mean how often do you even get to meet an actual supporter of Stalin and Kim Jong Il? And, yet, they dangled this bloody ideological chum in front of our eyes and then cruelly yanked the bait away at the very last minute, informing us less than an hour before the debate. They replaced the Communist with a Canadian which, even I had to concede, was a very poor substitute for a Communist.

Moving on, the first speaker for the proposition, a very bright Oxford student named Charlie Holt only reinforced my fear that we were going to be outclassed. Something akin to Hugh Grant’s mini-me, Holt had a very light sarcastic touch which allowed him to be biting while seeming lovable at the same time, like a barking toy robot puppy. As I commented from the floor — in an effort to defang him — he was just an adorable “little fellow…I wonder where you put the batteries in.”

The Islamists were more interesting. The first to speak, was the head of the now moribund British Islamic Party, David Pidcock. He turned out to be something of a quintessential leftwing loon. He began by talking about how George W. Bush’s grandfather was a primary financial backer of Hitler’s rise to power. He also explained how great the U.S. Constitution is and how much he has advocated it as a model for the Muslim world. But then he explained that he was saddened by the fact that the U.S. Constitution had been suspended. I expected this to be a lead-in for his denunciations of Guantanamo and the Patriot Act. Instead, it was the prologue to a long explanation of how the plutocrats in America had conspired to create the Federal Reserve which has ruled America from behind the scenes ever since. Or at least I think that’s what he was saying. As I commented, I fully expected him to start ranting about how the Fed is sapping our precious bodily fluids.

Jamal Harwood, the other Islamist and head of Hizb ut-Tahrir (read about this “peaceful” group here and here) was a much more serious and philosophically consistent fellow but, also, not a particularly impressive speaker either. Going in, I had assumed that the Islamists would be at minimum good talkers because demagogues always are. Instead, both men were oratorical mediocrities. They were outclassed in every way by the students on their side. I’m going to try to write up a more substantial analysis of what the Islamists represented for the magazine. But, the gist of Harwood’s indictment of America was that America represents modernity and individualism, and these things are bad. If you believe that modernity and individualism are bad, that’s a perfectly legitimate argument. But, to say America is too modern is not really the sort of argument cosmopolitan lefties at Oxford want to hear.

For example, Harwood went on and on about how America is selfish and crime-ridden. When I rose on a point of information to ask if he was aware that Americans are in fact vastly more charitable than Europeans and that crime rates in America compare very favorably with those in much of Europe, he said he didn’t care because he was hardly there to defend Europe. It was an honest and consistent answer, but not very helpful to his cause.

Anyway, we won the day by a margin of 2-1. The Islamists brought some Muslim supporters with them, the source of pretty much the only applause they received. In one sense this was a big victory. In another it was pretty depressing. The proposition, after all, was essentially that America should never have been born. If the question hadn’t been so extreme, it is entirely likely we would have lost, big (see for example Rich Lowry’s narrow defeat last year). Imagine if Britain had an election and a leftwing-Islamist party gained a third of the national vote. People would be flipping out.

What follows are my prepared remarks for the evening. They only imperfectly jibe with remarks as given, as I tried to stay away from the text and speak off the cuff as much as possible (which is why these comments are written the way I wanted to say them). Our own Iain Murray, an Oxford Union veteran, advised me to highlight the common British and American heritage, which was typically wise advice. Moreover, Rodman and I figured that since he went last he could deal more effectively with the various points raised by the bad guys. I salvaged as much of the Communist bashing as possible, but I ultimately ad-libbed a bunch of Canadian stuff as well. As I was the second speaker against the proposition, my strategy was to go on the attack, both against the proposition itself and against my opponents. This was the advice from everyone I talked to. The Union audience respects aggression, humor, and more aggression. In fact, the design and energy of the room is such that when I concluded my remarks, I felt like I should throw my sword at the upper decks like Maximus in Gladiator, shouting “Are you not entertained?!”

In short, I had a grand time, and now that I know how it works, I would love to do it again. So without further ado, here’s my plan of attack as I entered the arena:

_____

As both a committed Anglophile and patriotic American, I am honored to be here.

Though, I must say that the proposition tonight saddens me.

Until recently, it never would have dawned on me that good, decent, and wise Britons, proud of their heritage, proud of their culture, honored to call themselves sons and daughters of this great nation and co-authors of its future achievements, would lament the birth of a sister democracy and comrade-in-arms — particularly when that democracy stands upon the shoulders of British giants.

There is no denying the question before this house is shameful.

No decent mother questions whether her daughter should ever have been born lest she already has an answer in mind.

And whatever regrettable commentary it may be on the child, the mere posing of the question is even more pitiable comment upon the mother.

Unless. Unless, of course this is all a grand joke in the great satirical tradition of Monty Python, Simon Pegg and the farcical oxymoron that is David Cameron’s “conservatism.”

There is hopeful evidence on this front.

When I learned that tonight’s proposition would have as its champions two passionate defenders of sharia law and the hijab plus one spokesman for the Communist party, it dawned on me: “Aha, this is all a joke.”

This house regrets the birth of America as much as Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail had naught but a “flesh wound.”

[pause]

I don’t know how it is in Britain, but in America, Communists are nearly extinct. A few aging relics do linger on — like Japanese soldiers refusing to surrender long after the war. They live in an archipelago of academic backwaters, their bunkers brimming with yellowing copies of The Daily Worker and the Guardian, saturated with the strong stink of despair mixed with the suggestion of old urine.

Communists are more commonly seen as comic-book villains or mythical creatures rumored to have once existed in fairy tales or, perhaps, James Bond movies.

A Communist!? My goodness, were Dr. Doom, Lex Luthor, and Ernst Blowfeld unavailable?

Did the most sagacious pundits of the Klingon Empire not return the Oxford Union’s phone calls?

Do the Oompah Loompahs refuse to fly coach?

I’m sorry, but my honorable opponent’s party stands — as a matter of principle! — in lockstep solidarity with the murderocracy of Kim Jong Il’s North Korea. He stands as the living exponent of the criminal tradition of Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung, and he dares damn the United States of America from the safety of history’s dustbin. Please.

Surely, this evening was intended as a gag.

Where is the hidden camera? When will my opponents tear off their masks and laugh at the put on, joining us at the pub for beer and cigars giggling at the whole thing? As they say on MTV, Am I being punked?

And then there are my other “honorable” opponents: The gentlemen representing the “moderate” face of political Islam.

The Islamic Party of Britain holds that open homosexuals may receive the death sentence. Hizb ut-Tahrir openly desires a world — not merely a United Kingdom — where rejection of Islam by its adherents would bring a death sentence, and where Jews and Christians must live in official ghettos.

Both represent theocratic visions that make President Bush’s supposed “theo-conservatism” seem like a lapsed Unitarian’s weekend hobby.

Indeed, despite some vein-popping hysteria here and in Europe, the fact is that America is no theocracy, and it mixes religion and government less you folks in Britain and Europe do.

However, on the off chance that there are some in the room who do not get the joke, or — worse — that someone here isn’t kidding, let me make a few brief points.

First, there is no objection my honorable opponents could make to the existence of America that could not be made about the existence of Great Britain herself.

At least two of these men reject the Enlightenment. And I’m not talking about the French one. But the good one from Scotland. (When it comes to Enlightenments, as Michael Meyers says in So I Married an Ax Murderer — “if it’s not Scottish, it’s crap.”)

And all three of my opponents stand against the kind of Liberalism the United States, the United Kingdom, and this very Union represent.

The United States is not flawless, to be sure, but we are the fruit of freedom, the flawed champions of liberty and defenders of decency.

And, if you are honest with yourselves, you know — KNOW! — that should any of my opponents succeed in having their perfect world realized, those of you who did not stay in Britain to fight such oppression would count yourselves lucky to find asylum in the United States of America.

And, you know full well, that the United States of America would gladly offer it.

Second, whatever causes some of you to roll your eyes or titter at these statements must either be of very recent vintage indeed or, again, you must stand athwart Britain’s own history yelling, “Stop.”

And, if the case is the former, then your vote against America will be a badge of honor, for I want the support of no man who counts the United Kingdom as a villain.

But, if your position is the latter, if you were a fan, friend, or ally of the United States, until George W. Bush was elected — or until he allegedly seduced your own prime minister with some sort of Jedi Mind Trick into going into Iraq or some other recently minted grievance, let me say this: How childish of you.

To reject a former colony or ally for most of the last 400 years only to say that it was all for nothing because of a war you honorably enlisted in yourselves? For shame.

If in 2001 you would have voted against this proposition but today you want to vote for it, if you honestly think the last six-plus years erase all that was good about and of America for the previous four centuries, then you are either suffering from what we in the United States call Bush Derangement Syndrome or your friendship was never worth anything to begin with.

The proposition is not that the Bush presidency, the war, slavery, or even disco should be regretted. It is that the United States of America should be.

And that proposition would reap the scorn of Edmund Burke, William Gladstone, Winston Churchill, and countless others.

Please, my friends, let us be grownups. This is not Cambridge.

Lastly, let me just note that if the ugly fantasy at the heart of the proposition were somehow made real and America had never been born, then a lot more than democracy and freedom would suffer. America is the engine of global prosperity — a job we inherited from Britain.

From penicillin to the iPod, the artificial heart to rising crust pizza, jazz and the Simpsons to the Marshall Plan, America — through its ingenuity, openness, generosity, and adherence to the liberal principles it inherited from this great land — has championed the relief of man’s estate (in the words of Francis Bacon) and the liberty to let your freak flag fly (in the words of David Crosby).

Yes, anti-Americanism fashions itself a form of anti-globalization. But this is most often a ruse. Do keep in mind that my opponents represent a truly tyrannical form of globalization. Whether it’s “Workers of the World Unite” or the World Caliphate, the choice they are presenting is globalization for losers, while America, to the extent it represents globalization at all, offers the globalization of liberty.

The mere fact that you had to select three men from outside this heritage to defend the proposition, is proof enough that it is indefensible from within it. For, again, if you want to lament the birth of America, you must lament all that has been born of America.

And if you are prepared to do that, you are prepared to regret all that was born of Britain as well.

To which I say again: Surely you must be joking.

Mr. Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online.

If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.